Re: The Price Of Admission. Unacceptable.

[avc@netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering)]

Let me point out that one of the advantages of the wide membership in
Nominet is that even non-ISPs can be members.  Lawyers, companies
themselves, anyone who thinks its worth it to pony up a little money at
first in order to get a discount on registrations.

This in contradistinction to the German and French models, where only ISPs
who can provide nameservers are allowed to join the "club".  Their fees are
much higher too.

Nominet's membership is, nonetheless, mostly ISPs.  When dealing with a
public resource on a global level, maybe that mix isn't entirely
appropriate.  I think the PAB is a body that can really help in that
regard, getting input from "non-players".

I too believe that the admission requirement is too high, far too high.
One thing I like about the gTLD-MoU process, however, is that things can be
fixed.  This is one thing I really hope to fix.

Antony Van Couvering
**speaking personally*


At 06:15 PM 9/9/97 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
>
>> >You imply that the UK is too small and too homogeneous to serve as
>> >a good model.  I won't quibble over the accuracy of this judgement,
>> 
>> 	The description of Nominent as a co-op is, I think, very much useful for
>> guidance of the gTLD effort, as is your observation concerning consent.  In
>> fact, they are so useful, they apply to the gTLD MoU.  I think the point of
>> departure is the details.  CORE is very much a cooperative.
>
>This is good polemic but a poor reply.
>
>Nominet has consent that approaches 100% of the ISPs in the UK.  This 
>is a fundamental difference.
>
>If there are around a dozen CORE registrars and around 6,000 ISPs in 
>the world, that is, uhm, 0.2% consent.  Except that none of those 
>registrars is an ISP, so that gives you, uhm, 0.0% consent.
>
>If we count in the 160 or so signatories of the gTLD MOU you might
>be said to have 2%.
>
>> >Nominet has of course competed very successfully with NSI.  Use of 
>> >the com/net/org domains in the UK has dropped sharply since Nominet
>> >was formed.
>> 
>> 	I didn't realize that NSI had viewed Nominet as a threat and had then gone
>> about an aggressive disinformation campaign against it.  Neither did I
>> realize that their eventual cooperation to the Nominet effort was a
>> constant source of questions and problems.  How did you overcome those
>> hurdles?
>
>Nominet was born in the sort of brawl that typifies how things are
>done in the UK.  But the people involved then made a major effort 
>to achieve near-universal consensus -- and they succeeded.  Then
>they went ahead.  
>
>First consensus, then action.
>
>> >And geo-politicization?  Let's assume that by this you mean 
>> >international politics.
>> >
>> >That is, politicians will intervene in the Internet's affairs only
>> >if they can do so without risk.  Where there is agreement in the
>> >Internet community, the agreement that comes from consent, 
>> >politicians will stand back.
>> 
>> 	Again, I hadn't realized the 10 Downing got directly involved with the
>> formation of Nominet, 
>
>Well, no, but the DTI has said a word or two.
>
>>                      including issuing directives about addition of names
>> and otherwise keeping the formation process ambiguous, with continuing
>> uncertainty about its legal basis and legitimacy. Having other
>> international bodies, like the EU, focus so heavily on Nominet must have
>> been quite challenging.
>
>There was no focus because there was a great deal of consensus in
>the Internet community that this wsas the way to go.
> 
>> >The Council of Registrars currently has a dozen or so approved 
>> >registrars, each of which is contributing $10,000.  This gives CORE
>> ...
>> >Imagine a different set of rules.  Imagine that CORE was being
>> 
>> 	How many initial registrars did Nominet have apply?  
>
>A hundred or so, I think.  Perhaps more.  You have to remember that
>there was an informal system before Nominet (one that gave a great
>deal of power to a dozen or so ISPs and was bitterly resented by
>many).  
>
>>                                                   How many do you think
>> would apply to be a gTLD registrar if there were no financial criteria
>> other than a US$ 1,000 fee?  
>
>Thousands.
>
>>                             Do you think the difference in scale would
>> affect the processes of forming CORE?  
>
>Yes.  CORE would be financially much more stable.  The opposition would
>happily become part of the process.  Political problems would disappear
>or be very much reduced.
>
>>                                       Do you not think that this would
>> also affect the ability of the organization to form itself quickly and
>> stand against NSI directly in its early days?  
>
>Yes I do.  I think that it would be stronger.
>
>>                                              Remember that at every turn,
>> the gTLD work has the NSI spectre watching over and threatening this or
that.
>
>Yep.  So it would be better to be bigger, have more support, and so
>forth.
> 	
>> >>From the UK experience I would expect at least a thousand registrars,
>> >so that CORE's assets would exceed $1 million.  And the overall assets
>> >of CORE's registrars would be on the order of $1 trillion.
>> 
>> 	So the credit requirements stay high, just the fee gets lower?
>
><sigh>  Nominet's only requirement is a joining fee.  
>  
>>                                                                You think
>> that would result in a massive increase in the number of registrar
>> applications?
>
>The Nominet approach would, yes.
>
>> >There is no practical reason for setting the financial requirements 
>> >for registrars so high and the consequences are dire.  Paradoxically,
>> >CORE is financially much weaker than it would be otherwise.  The few
>> 
>> 	Having a very large number of initial registrars would introduce a dynamic
>> that would probably take at least a year to shake out.  
>
>Yep.
>
>>                                                       It is unlikely it
>> could be very effective during that time.  
>
>That was not the experience at Nominet.  In the beginning there were 
>some problems, but these were rapidly resolved.  Since then it has
>been functioning very well.
>
>>                                              Since CORE needs to move very
>> aggressively, the scale and variety that would result from your suggestion
>> might well result in a larger financial pool amongst the CORE members but
>> it would also result in very serious group dynamics management problems.
>
>Yes, the group would be difficult to "manage".  But one of my points 
>is that we don't need a lot of management, Dave.  We need a working
>alternative to NSI.
>
>--
>Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
>VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
>
>Member of Council                                         UK Representative
>Internet Services Providers Association                            EuroISPA
>http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
>tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 230 7560
>
>